Wednesday, March 20, 2013

IntroductionAgriculture is critical for human survival. It is also one of the sectors that climate change will have the worst impact on. Indeed, there is now growing evidence that the impacts of climate change are unfolding at a pace much faster than those predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Very high losses in agricultural production, ranging from 20 to 40 percent, are expected to occur, especially in Africa and South Asia. However, apart from being a victim of climate change, agriculture is also thought to contribute to it. Accordingto various estimates, it is suggested that in India alone, agriculture could contribute around 25 to 30 percent of national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Rejecting the Dominant Unsustainable Agricultural Model

Small and marginal farmers contribute 50 percent of crop production in India. Those farmers make up 85 percent of agricultural labour and of them, 40 percent are women . Despite their importance in Indian agriculture, most smallholder farmers have been driven into penury due to recurring drought,crop failure and state neglect.

The high input, mechanised, monoculture promoting and agrochemical based model of agriculture that is being endorsed in most parts of the world (including India) further marginalises small farmers.

Furthermore, intensive agrochemical farming with its large carbon footprint is obviously unsustainable for the future.

In short, such model cannot help smallholder farmers cope with the emerging challenges and threats from climate change; it can only exacerbate the problem. This unsustainable model urgentlyneeds to be replaced with a sustainable, climate resilient, and environmentally as well as socially benign model of agriculture. Agriculture must effectively adapt to the changing climate, in amanner which minimises or eliminates production losses. At the same time, GHG emissions from agriculture must also be minimised or eliminated in order to meet the global target of containing the rise of average temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius.

Climate Resilient Sustainable Agriculture

An alternative agricultural model must have the following elements in order to successfully move away from the dominant unsustainable model:

Water conservation and harvesting

The most important step in adapting agriculture to climate change will have to be the conservation ofwater wherever it falls. Rainwater harvesting, creation of village level water bodies and watersheddevelopment, combined with maximisation of food production, must become a core strategy to helpfarmers cope with the vagaries of the changing climate.

Conserving the genetic diversity of crop plants

Conserving genetic diversity of crops is recognised as the key to helping farmers cope with climate change. Promoting agro-biodiversity at village level through Zero Energy Gene Seed Banks (such as the model developed by the Gene Campaign ) means conserving the gene pool and those genes that will be needed to breed new crop varieties to cope with droughts, floods, soil salinity and other environmental challenges that will inevitably accompany climate change.

Reducing water use and agricultural waste

By adopting new practices, such as the System of Rice Intensification, farmers can adapt to climate change with minimal losses.The System of Rice Intensification is a water saving, methane emission reducing rice cultivation strategy; this step alone would significantly reduce GHG emissions from agriculture.

Bio-organic substitutes

Agriculture can be made more sustainable and highly productive by replacing chemical fertilisers andpesticides with bio-organic substitutes to the extent possible. By making this change, carbon footprints can be reduced, and reducing the use of nitrogenous fertilisers will also reduce nitrousoxide emissions.

Food and nutrition gardens

To buffer the most marginal and poor sections of the society from the reduced food productionresulting from climate change, household level food and nutrition gardens will provide supplementary food supply and much needed nutrition.

Minimising mechanised agriculturePromoting labour-intensive rather than mechanised agriculture has the benefit of reducing energyconsumption, and thereby carbon emissions. It also provides employment and income to smallfarmers and peasants as well as landless agriculture labourers.

Questioning genetically modified (GM) crops

There is a need to examine the role of GM crops being promoted as the answer to climate change. A critical analysis needs to be done of what, if anything, this technology can contribute to agricultural and food security. In addition, bio-safety regulations in India and other countries need to be examined to check that regulatory processes ensure safe GM crops and food.

Conclusion

A climate resilient as well as environmentally and socially appropriate approach to agriculture, such as those above, can be as productive as the high input and energy intensive approach to agriculture that has been relied upon for decades. Furthermore, sustainable agricultural methods can also providelong-term food security in the face of frequent and extreme weather conditions. Lastly, the role of small and marginalised farmers in championing climate resilient sustainable agriculture must be re-emphasised and further explored.

Monday, March 18, 2013

1.A Technical Expert
Committee (TEC) was appointed by the Supreme Court to go into issues raised in
the two PILs filed on GMOs. The first by Gene Campaign in 2004, the second a
year later by Aruna Rodrigues and friends, in 2005. The Supreme Court had
appointed a five member TEC to give recommendations on two specific
issues: i) whether a ban should be imposed on conducting field trials of
GM crops , in open fields and i) if such trials were to be conducted, then what
scientific protocols should be followed and what conditions imposed for such
trials.

The TEC has submitted its interim
report and
has pointed out the serious lacunae in the regulatory framework for GMOs
and recommended a moratorium for 10 years on any open field trials till
the shortcomings in regulatory procedures have been sorted out and
additional safety data generated through proper studies. It may be recalled
that a similar injunction by the then Environment Minister , to generate
additional biosafety data on Bt brinjal led to an embarassing cut and paste
rehash of old data by senior scientists of the ICAR system.

In upholding the
Precautionary Principle in its approach, the TEC members have played a responsible
role in protecting the public interest and safeguarding the health of humans
and animals, as well as the environment. It is hearteningto find mention in the TEC report of several
important points that Gene Campaign has been raising over the years, like
banning genetic transformation of crops for which India is a Center of Origin
(like rice) and a moratorium on trials of GM crops with the
Herbicide Tolerance trait, which is labour displacing and destroys valuable
biodiversity used by rural communities as food, fodder and health and
veterinary care.

TEC has also emphasized
the importance of considering the socioeconomic aspects of introducing GMOs ,
before taking any decisions. Socioeconomic aspects are an important
issue raised in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to which India is a
signatory and the conditions of which it usually fails to take on board. In
failing to consider the impact of a GM crop , for instance on organic farming,
the Indian regulatory system completely ignores the interest of such
farmers who would lose their markets if contamination with the GM product were
to take place. In addition to this, in failing to pay attention to socio
economic aspects, India is in violation of its commitment under the Cartagena
Protocol on biosafety.

The TEC report’s emphasis
on the extremely limited, often compromised nature of biosafety testing is
correct. The current practice of conducting dangerously inadequate
feeding studies to assess the food safety and toxicity of the transgenic
plant has been strongly criticised , as has been the practice of allowing
applicants of GM crops to sub contract their biosafety studies to
other agencies. This abdication of responsibility and failure of accountability
by agencies engaged in developing GM crops and foods, in such a crucial
area is a recipe for disaster and almost certain to include violation of
even the weak biosafety guidelines that are in place.

Civil society groups have
over the years uncovered several instances of field trails of GM crops
being conducted in flagrant violation of all biosafety procedures, in the
middle of farmers fields, thus ensuring transgenic contamination of
neighbouring crops. In many cases these untested GM food crops from open
field trials have found their way to the markets and been consumed by local
farm families, putting at risk the health of those who have unwittingly
consumed these possibly toxic foods. The TEC recommendation to stop such
shoddy , unregulated field trials immediately , even in cases where
permission has already been given, is a much needed intervention in the right
direction.

Gene Campaign’s original
prayer in its 2004 PIL and an oft repeated subsequent demand for
more technically competent people in regulatory bodies , specially in the
apex GEAC, has found mention in the TEC report. It has said an immediate
rectification of this serious lapse is warranted because the current
members were not capable of assessing scientific data to assess safety. The TEC
critique should help to fundamentally overhaul the unsatisfactory and
inadequate regulatory system and force a reality check on regulators who
have never tired of calling themselves the best in the world.

The TEC report should also
put the GM industry on guard which for too long has succeeded, by using all
sorts of methods to get its way with half tested GMOs . With the complicity of
pliable regulators, violations by powerful companies are covered up by the
regulators themselves and nobody is brought to book.

The TEC recommendations for a
ten year moratorium on field trials of all Bt transgenic food crops is a
correct step but needs to go further. Several transgenic food crops are being developed
with non Bt genes and these must also be brought into the ambit of the 10 year
moratorium. The impacts of these genes ( like the ama gene used in potato and
the genes being used in mustard etc) are even less understood than the Bt
gene and bringing them under the moratorium for further assessment is crucial.
Perhaps the final TEC report that is yet to come, will deal with these
issues.

2.
I fully
agree with the interim report submitted by the Committee to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.

The Precautionary
Principle has been rightly invoked by the Committee in giving its
recommendations. The Precautionary Principle says that if there is a reasonable
suspicion that an action will result in damage to the environment, human and
animal health, such action should not be allowed. In case of GM Technology
there is concrete evidence about its potential for harm to health and
environment safety. All recommendations made by the TEC have scientific and
legal support and therefore, ought to be reiterated and re-emphasized.

The Supreme Court in
its order dated 10 May, 2012 had given three months time to the Expert
Committee to submit its final report. The interim report was required to be
submitted only in the event that the Committee was unable to submit its final
report within the three month period. The Supreme Court has not accepted the
recommendations of the Technical Expert Committee appointed by it and has
opened up their report for comments from the government and the GM industry.
The government council has said explicitly that they will not accept the
report. The GM industry, not surprisingly, has taken an aggressive line against
the Supreme Court appointed expert committee’s recommendations.

The most logical action
for the Technical Expert Committee would now be to respond to all the
objections and suggestions that have been raised on their report by the
government and the biotechnology industry and submit one final report. This
report should include what still remains to be submitted as well asthe responses to the new objections and
suggestions. There does not seem to be any reason for the TEC to file another
interim report incorporating responses to the objections and then to submit a
final report after that. In the interest of rational decision making, the TEC
should collate everything and submit its one time final report.

About Me

Dr. Suman Sahai, who has had a distinguished scientific career in the field of genetics, is a recipient of the Padma Shri,the Borlaug Award, Outstanding Woman Achiever awards, the BirbalSahni Gold Medal and the Order of the Golden Ark .
Dr. Sahai is founder Chairperson of the Gene Campaign which is a leading research and advocacy organization, working on issues relating to food, nutrition and livelihoods. She has published extensively on science and policy issues and is a member of several national policy forums on scientific research and education, biodiversity and environment, biotechnology and bioethics as well as intellectual property rights.
Dr Sahai chaired India’s Planning Commission Task Force on ‘Agro biodiversity and Genetically Engineered Organisms’, for the XIth Plan. She was a member of the Steering Committee of the National Biodiversity Board , the Expert Committee on Biotechnology Policy and the Bioethics Committee of the Indian Council of Medical Research.She has served on the Research Advisory Committees of national scientific institutions.
Dr Sahai can be reached at www.genecampaign.org and mail@genecampaign.org